I have to take issue with the claim that “Prisons do not act as a deterrent to
crime”. There is a small group for whom that is the case – and that group is
the recidivists who, as you say, have a high re-offending rate, and are being
sub-optimally helped by the prison system. But saying that prison isn't fit for
purpose because of high re-offending rates is an absurd complaint, and a
peculiar error of reasoning. It's a bit like complaining that sea defences
aren't fit for purpose because occasionally there are extreme coastal
conditions that break those barriers.

It would be good if the sea defences prevented all flooding, but their primary
job is to protect the land from the ordinary thrust of the sea on a daily
basis. Similarly, prison's primary function is to reduce offending (by
deterrence and by keeping criminals out of society), not re-offending. If it
reduces re-offending then all well and good, but that is not its primary
function. It's preposterous to consider whether prison is fit for purpose by
only considering the recidivism rates. It's as preposterous as considering how
many men in the UK take steroids by only interviewing weight-trainers in
gymnasiums.

Such a biased research method would drastically skew the overall figures, and
this is what is happening with Vicky Pryce’s “Prisons do not act as a deterrent
to crime” claim, as recidivists are people who've already been convicted of a
crime, so they are people for whom the threat of prison was no real deterrent
first time out. Consequently, they are the biased sample of the population for
whom prison is the least likely to be a deterrent second time around. The only
proper way to enquire whether prison is fit for purpose is to ask how much of a
deterrent it is for the vast majority of people in the UK - those who haven't
found themselves outside of the orbit of the law. As far as we can gather, the
threat of prison, loss of liberty, loss of employment, and so forth has been a
very successful deterrent for a majority of the population.

This is compounded by the fact that when it comes to the change in social
status from being an ordinary citizen to a convicted criminal, the first cut
really is the deepest. That is to say, the first time a recidivist became a
criminal was the worst time for him (or her). It was on that first occasion
that he became incarcerated, when up until then he had only been used to
freedom, and it was then that he first experienced the change in status that
would give him a social stigma and make him harder to employ. If that wasn't a
sufficient deterrent, we shouldn't be too surprised that criminals are even
less likely to be deterred second time around. I should finish by saying that
it’s only on that point I have a quibble – I agree with the rest of the
article.

About Me

This is the Blog of James Knight - a keen philosophical commentator on many subjects.
My primary areas of interest are: philosophy, economics, politics, mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, theology, psychology, history, the arts and social commentary.
I also contribute articles to the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economics Affairs.
Hope you enjoy this blog! Always happy to hear from old friends and new!
Email:j.knight423@btinternet.com